Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-115"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Safe third states2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030922.7.1-115"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-22-Speech-1-1162
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlos Coelho2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2003-03-10--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Partido Social Democrata (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by emphasising my support for the rapporteur’s rejection of this initiative. We understand the circumstances which led the Austrian Government to suggest it. Those circumstances are highly specific to Austria’s situation, and were clearly explained during the debate by Mr Pirker. We have, on more than one occasion, however, drawn the attention of this House to the problems raised by this type of initiative on the part of Member States occupying the rotating Presidency, since they are often dictated more by internal political exigencies than by an overview either of Community interests or of the healthy development of the legislative framework of the area of freedom, security and justice. I will also repeat something I have already said once before in this House. It is important to underline the Commission’s role in intelligently implementing the scoreboard established for that area of freedom, security and justice. This initiative raises various complex problems, which have already been mentioned. They include the problem of the regulation itself, which does not really seem to be the most suitable framework for this legislation, for reasons which everyone has outlined; and the issue of compatibility with the Geneva Convention, which was mentioned just now, by which I mean the need for us to take great care to ensure that the existence of lists does not conflict with the logic of individual examination underpinning the principles of the Geneva Convention. What really seems important, however, is that we keep trying to define a common asylum procedure. It is with that goal in mind, moreover, the goal of the Directive on that procedure, that we must examine, analyse and debate all of these issues. It was important for Parliament to vote on that Directive, of which there is a new version on which we have not yet been consulted. I would, therefore, like to emphasise the words of Commissioner Vitorino, who mentioned the need for Parliament to vote on that new version in the near future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph